Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Bhola Singh And Ors. vs Gosto Behari Sarkar on 18 March, 1965

Sadhanandhan vs Leelavathy on 10 September, 1987

In this connection, it is worthwhile to refer to para 10 of the above quoted Judgment in Bhola Singh v. Gosto Behari , where the Court considered the basic limitation on the jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Causes Court and in effect concluded that Chap. VII and VIII of the Act are subject to such basic limitation. It should be noted that under Chap. VIII, a distress proceeding is initiated on an application by the person claiming to be entitled to arrears of rent of any house or premises which application should be supported by an affidavit or affirmation to the effect in the form marked "As in III" Schedule to the Act. The proceedings start Ex Parte and the distress warrant is also issued Ex Parte. Hence, there is. no adjudication involved in this process. It is only after the seizure of the movable property found in and upon the houses mentioned in the warrant. the affected person can come forward with an application either under Section 60 or 61 of the Act. As between the applicant and the debtor, the Act does not contemplate adjudication of any disputed question as between them.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Devben Wd'O. Sadhuram Joturam vs Motiram Hotamchand on 28 February, 1979

2. For the purpose of this judgment, I assume that these revision applications are competent under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, but Mr. Shah tells me that all these applications are filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first ground on which I decline to interfere with the orders of the courts below is that these petitioners have a suitable remedy open to them to file the suits under Section 18 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act or Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act for the purpose of realising this rent and in such suits, the question of title also can be incidentally gone through as or the legal provision, namely, Section 29-A of the Bombay Rent Act. As more efficacious remedy is available to these petitioners, J am not inclined to exercise this discretionary jurisdiction of mine under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Even apart from this, on merits also 1 find that the appellate Bench's judgment is proceeding on a sound footing. The elaborate discussion of the evidentiary material in the judgment of the Appellate Bench is by itself sufficient proof of the fact that the question of title was hotly debated and is, therefore, highly in the contest between the parties. Distress proceedings, which are initiated ex-parte and which are ex facie of the summary character, cannot be said to be proper proceedings for dealing with contentious questions like the one that has been raging in this litigation. On this view, I am fortified by the judgment of the Calcutta, High Court in the case of Bhola Singh and Ors. v. Gosto Behari Sarkari which is a case directly on all fours as far as the principle is concerned. The Calcutta High Court in that case has observed as follows:
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1